Every time I read an article like
this, I'm reminded of Avmed's approach to CVD - though there was a short period of enlightenment as a consequence of objectivity prevailing temporarily.
A couple of highlights:
The fallacy of incomplete evidence
There is a big difference between evidence-based thesis or thinking and cherry picking or choosing data or evidence (they are not the same thing) that supports your argument or point of view.
The fallacy of incomplete evidence is a logical illusion or misinterpretation that occurs when we are only being given or only subject ourselves (through selective reading or only approaching experts who agree with our viewpoint, for example) to evidence that backs up one point of view or proposition. Because the evidence is incomplete, it creates a bias and a of assumptions that may be false or different to those we might otherwise have, if we knew the full facts.
As a result, any thinking or conclusions drawn are also likely to be biased. The fallacy of incomplete evidence refers to the phenomenon whereby people tend to become swayed and believe a proposition or argument, if there appears to be evidence for the argument, even if that evidence is incomplete or biased. This effect is particularly strong, if the argument put forward is in agreement with the individual’s values. In effect, people are unlikely to realise that the evidence they are being presented with is incomplete and biased.
Evidence suppression, reference mining and cherry-picking
It is actually manipulation to cherry pick evidence, (also known as evidence suppression or quote/reference mining). Finding evidence that only supports your argument and either ignoring or even actively misinterpreting, suppressing or hiding evidence that does not support, or disagrees with, your argument is a form of manipulation. The reason why people engage in such practices is to bolster their argument; if people are made aware of the counter-evidence, they may well question the argument.
Evidence suppression can be done for a variety of reasons, however, the effect is the same – to promote and enhance the claims made by a particular argument.